Guns and Violence, A Logical Perspective

[Popeyewinter]

Hi,

This may be a little controversial and strike disagreement, however I am trying to go about this logically and theoretically. So this is just in theory.

</COLOR>

1. Guns don't kill people, people kill people

<i></i>
- This is true because just like a toaster toasts toast, it still needs an operator (a person) in order to complete it's task, so does a gun.

1. Criminals will not care about the law

<i></i>
- this should be obvious enough, there's a reason they are criminals.

1. People with serious mental issues should not have access to guns, unless under strict supervision

<i></i>
- This is a good point, for obvious reasons.

1. People with recent criminal offences should not have access to guns

<i></i><COLOR color="#BF0000">
- yes this is true, because there is a good enough chance that they will just commit more criminal offences.


I hope I presented this as clearly and logically as possible.

 

[Inferno]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people


- This is true because just like a toaster toasts toast, it still needs an operator (a person) in order to complete it's task, so does a gun.

Though true to an extent, I have a problem with how you put this.



This James Bond clip should show the problem with the way you phrase your argument.

I would change it slightly:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people

But guns make it a hell of a lot easier. Try killing someone with a cotton swab, ain't so easy now.

 

[Prolescum]

Hi,

This may be a little controversial and strike disagreement, however I am trying to go about this logically and theoretically. So this is just in theory.

Okies.

1. Guns don't kill people, people kill people

<i></i>
- This is true because just like a toaster toasts toast, it still needs an operator (a person) in order to complete it's task, so does a gun.

If you're going to put forward this argument, a stronger analogy would be something like a hammer. I don't buy it though, as it appears as simply an attempt to be glib because you believe your position should be the default.
It isn't logical by this argument, and here's why: you say: guns don't kill people, people kill people and I then say, you're right, guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people, and then I win by applying some logic (via inferrence) to your sentence.
Guns were designed specifically to kill things better than previous methods.

There's no reason to return to this point in the discussion as it's a crap one.

1. Criminals will not care about the law

<i></i>
- this should be obvious enough, there's a reason they are criminals.

The unspoken assumption here is that people who kill people with guns are necessarily criminals. Only after the fact (and due process) can this be said with anything approaching certainty. You're committing the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

1. People with serious mental issues should not have access to guns, unless under strict supervision

<i></i>
- This is a good point, for obvious reasons.

Although they may be obvious, it's better that you state them so we can understand with specificity and avoid unecessary confusion. I'll wait before dealing with this one, barring two questions:
Why is there a conditional distinction? What qualifies as supervision in this case?

1. People with recent criminal offences should not have access to guns

<i></i>
- yes this is true, because there is a good enough chance that they will just commit more criminal offences.

Again, here you're making massive assumptions; for one, we don't define the term "criminal" by the number of arms they use. As an example, what about a convicted fraudster? Given the assumption that guns are legal to own (they're not where I live, with the odd exception), why should Freddy Fraudster be denied this (for wont of a better term) right?

I hope I presented this as clearly and logically as possible.

It's not a very strong argument yet, but I'm sure down the road you'll find a better way to make the case.

 

[tuxbox]

I would change it slightly:
Guns don't kill people, people kill people

But guns make it a hell of a lot easier. Try killing someone with a cotton swab, ain't so easy now.

indeed

 

[WarK]

Guns don't kill people, eh?

'Mummy shot': Woman shot dead by three-year-old son

 

[Popeyewinter]

Guns don't kill people, eh?

'Mummy shot': Woman shot dead by three-year-old son

By (insert name and age of person) - exactly.

 

[tuxbox]

There are too many guns in the hands of stupid people and mental ill people in America. It seems like every time I turn on the news, there is a new shooting somewhere. I do not pretend to know what the solution to this problem is, as we do have the Second Amendment in our Constitution, but something needs to be done to bring these type of shooting to an end. That being said, reducing the amount of guns in this country or banning them altogether, will not stop crazy people from killing. Here is an example:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Man-Kills-Beheads-Woman-Suicide-LIRR-Train-Farmingdale-280731252.html

 

[Inferno]

There are too many guns in the hands of stupid people and mental ill people in America. It seems like every time I turn on the news, there is a new shooting somewhere. I do not pretend to know what the solution to this problem is, as we do have the Second Amendment in our Constitution, but something needs to be done to bring these type of shooting to an end. That being said, reducing the amount of guns in this country or banning them altogether, will not stop crazy people from killing. Here is an example:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Man-Kills-Beheads-Woman-Suicide-LIRR-Train-Farmingdale-280731252.html

Then again, the amount of violence carried out with guns will drastically decline. In my book, lives should be saved and royally fuck the second amendment. From memory, few countries have as high a homicide rate as the US. That is, in large part at least, due to the gun laws.

 

[Popeyewinter]

Hi,

This may be a little controversial and strike disagreement, however I am trying to go about this logically and theoretically. So this is just in theory.

Okies.

1. Guns don't kill people, people kill people

<i></i>
- This is true because just like a toaster toasts toast, it still needs an operator (a person) in order to complete it's task, so does a gun.

If you're going to put forward this argument, a stronger analogy would be something like a hammer. I don't buy it though, as it appears as simply an attempt to be glib because you believe your position should be the default.
It isn't logical by this argument, and here's why: you say: guns don't kill people, people kill people and I then say, you're right, guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people, and then I win by applying some logic (via inferrence) to your sentence.
Guns were designed specifically to kill things better than previous methods.

There's no reason to return to this point in the discussion as it's a crap one.

1. Criminals will not care about the law

<i></i>
- this should be obvious enough, there's a reason they are criminals.

The unspoken assumption here is that people who kill people with guns are necessarily criminals. Only after the fact (and due process) can this be said with anything approaching certainty. You're committing the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

1. People with serious mental issues should not have access to guns, unless under strict supervision

<i></i>
- This is a good point, for obvious reasons.

Although they may be obvious, it's better that you state them so we can understand with specificity and avoid unecessary confusion. I'll wait before dealing with this one, barring two questions:
Why is there a conditional distinction? What qualifies as supervision in this case?

1. People with recent criminal offences should not have access to guns

<i></i>
- yes this is true, because there is a good enough chance that they will just commit more criminal offences.

Again, here you're making massive assumptions; for one, we don't define the term "criminal" by the number of arms they use. As an example, what about a convicted fraudster? Given the assumption that guns are legal to own (they're not where I live, with the odd exception), why should Freddy Fraudster be denied this (for wont of a better term) right?

I hope I presented this as clearly and logically as possible.

It's not a very strong argument yet, but I'm sure down the road you'll find a better way to make the case.

Ok,

there is a distinction between say a "neuro-typical person" or someone with mild autism or something and people with depression or psychosis or schizophrenia.

The first two, if trained and not violent criminals, are minuscule danger. However the latter examples, and I'm going to add people with suicidal tendencies are increased dangers to others and/or themselves.

A psychotic person may go on a shooting spree, a schizophrenic may go on a shooting spree too, and a person with chronic depression or suicidal tendencies may shoot themselves.

Supervision wise, the amount and style may differ depending on person.

A depressed or suicidal person should not be denied the fun and excitement of shooting at a range, there should just be someone beside them at all times to stop them if they point at themselves.

As for psychotics and schizophrenics, there should be armed security to eliminate the threat if one arises.

 

[tuxbox]

There are too many guns in the hands of stupid people and mental ill people in America. It seems like every time I turn on the news, there is a new shooting somewhere. I do not pretend to know what the solution to this problem is, as we do have the Second Amendment in our Constitution, but something needs to be done to bring these type of shooting to an end. That being said, reducing the amount of guns in this country or banning them altogether, will not stop crazy people from killing. Here is an example:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Man-Kills-Beheads-Woman-Suicide-LIRR-Train-Farmingdale-280731252.html

Then again, the amount of violence carried out with guns will drastically decline. In my book, lives should be saved and royally fuck the second amendment. From memory, few countries have as high a homicide rate as the US. That is, in large part at least, due to the gun laws.

Even if the Second Amendment were to be overturned today, gun violence in America would continue. Criminals do not care about gun laws and will continue to kill. Chicago has some of the strictest guns laws in the country and most of the city is a gun free zone, yet it has the highest gun violence rates in the country. I believe America is a lost cause when it comes to this issue. Too many guns in the hands of criminals.

 

[tuxbox]

Ok,

there is a distinction between say a "neuro-typical person" or someone with mild autism or something and people with depression or psychosis or schizophrenia.

The first two, if trained and not violent criminals, are minuscule danger. However the latter examples, and I'm going to add people with suicidal tendencies are increased dangers to others and/or themselves.

A psychotic person may go on a shooting spree, a schizophrenic may go on a shooting spree too, and a person with chronic depression or suicidal tendencies may shoot themselves.

Supervision wise, the amount and style may differ depending on person.

A depressed or suicidal person should not be denied the fun and excitement of shooting at a range, there should just be someone beside them at all times to stop them if they point at themselves.

As for psychotics and schizophrenics, there should be armed security to eliminate the threat if one arises.

What?! Are you being serious?

 

[Popeyewinter]

Ok,

there is a distinction between say a "neuro-typical person" or someone with mild autism or something and people with depression or psychosis or schizophrenia.

The first two, if trained and not violent criminals, are minuscule danger. However the latter examples, and I'm going to add people with suicidal tendencies are increased dangers to others and/or themselves.

A psychotic person may go on a shooting spree, a schizophrenic may go on a shooting spree too, and a person with chronic depression or suicidal tendencies may shoot themselves.

Supervision wise, the amount and style may differ depending on person.

A depressed or suicidal person should not be denied the fun and excitement of shooting at a range, there should just be someone beside them at all times to stop them if they point at themselves.

As for psychotics and schizophrenics, there should be armed security to eliminate the threat if one arises.

What?! Are you being serious?

Yes, sir. What is wrong\?

 

[tuxbox]

Yes, sir. What is wrong\?

Because the groups of people you listed are exactly the type of people who go on shooting sprees. They should not be allowed anywhere near a firearm. Look at all the spree shooting here in America. Most of them had some kind of mental illness.

 

[Popeyewinter]

Yes, sir. What is wrong\?

Because the groups of people you listed are exactly the type of people who go on shooting sprees. They should not be allowed anywhere near a firearm. Look at all the spree shooting here in America. Most of them had some kind of mental illness.

Which is why I said armed security.

 

[tuxbox]

Yes, sir. What is wrong\?

Because the groups of people you listed are exactly the type of people who go on shooting sprees. They should not be allowed anywhere near a firearm. Look at all the spree shooting here in America. Most of them had some kind of mental illness.

Which is why I said armed security.

Even with armed security, a person with a gun can still do some damage. James Brady and President Ronald Reagan come to mind.

 

[Popeyewinter]

Ronald Ragan was a criminal? Tubox?

 

[tuxbox]

Ronald Ragan was a criminal? Tubox?

lol

*Edited*
Most Presidents are!

 

[Inferno]

Even if the Second Amendment were to be overturned today, gun violence in America would continue. Criminals do not care about gun laws and will continue to kill. Chicago has some of the strictest guns laws in the country and most of the city is a gun free zone, yet it has the highest gun violence rates in the country. I believe America is a lost cause when it comes to this issue. Too many guns in the hands of criminals.

Overturning the Second Amendment does not equal to imposing strict gun laws does not equal to the laws actually working. I think yours is a lame-ass excuse for not even trying. I'll once again leave three videos:

John Oliver: Gun trilogy

 

[tuxbox]

Even if the Second Amendment were to be overturned today, gun violence in America would continue. Criminals do not care about gun laws and will continue to kill. Chicago has some of the strictest guns laws in the country and most of the city is a gun free zone, yet it has the highest gun violence rates in the country. I believe America is a lost cause when it comes to this issue. Too many guns in the hands of criminals.

Overturning the Second Amendment does not equal to imposing strict gun laws does not equal to the laws actually working. I think yours is a lame-ass excuse for not even trying. I'll once again leave three videos:

John Oliver: Gun trilogy

1) How do you get the guns out of the hands of gang bangers? Gun laws mean jack shit to them!

2) There are over 270 million guns in America. That's more than 10 times the Australian population!

3) How do you get the people to give up their guns? Through a buy back program? Or do you send in the Feds into every home in America and forcibly take them? If it is the latter, then we have a civil war on our hands. It will be very ugly to say the least.

You may think it can be fixed with a stroke of a pen, but it is a hell of a lot more complicated than that here and for the record, I'm for gun control.

 

[Visaki]

For some background on my gun oppinion; I'm Finnish and Finland is, depending on the study, on the places 3-5 on guns per capita in the World. Per capita we have a bit over half the guns that the US, which is by far the clear leader, has. Still our rate of homicides is a third of the USs and homicides using guns about a tenth. I wonder why that is.

Most of our guns are (bolt action) rifles and shotguns for hunting (self loading ones are rare and automatic weapons are banned) , pistols are rare. You need a licence to buy a gun and licences for pistols, specially anything heavier than a .22, are hard to get. Most finnish males have attended the concription based army and handled weapons (an assault rifle and a LMG for me) there and to get a licence for a hunting weapon you need to pass a test on hunting laws and gun safety. Our police have this year used their guns about 40 times. "Used" means that they have taken a gun out and either fired it or used it as a threat. Half of those are putting down some pigs that were so maltreated that they were euthanized and only handfull of cases have the officer firing his weapon as a warning shot or at a person. So the bar for even taking ones gun out of the holster is pretty high for the police here. (Sidenote; I think a big difference in police work, in the light of the recent police shootings in the US, is that our police always work on pairs and that brings a lot of options to the table when dealing with violent but not gun using aggressors.)

I really don't see why some of the suggested regulations aren't implemented in the US. Mandatory back ground checks or even mandatory gun registration isn't a threat to the regular law abidin gun owner. Laws banning full automatic 100 round drum magazine assault rifles, 50 BMG sniper rifles or 30 round clips for hand guns aren't a threat to the regular law abidin gun owner. Laws mandating that you have to report who you sold your gun to (or if you lost it or it was stolen) isn't a threat to the regular law abidin gun owner.

I'm a bit puzzled on the American's fervor about their 2nd amendment. For an outsider like me it's quite straight foreward; The founding fathers thought that a standing army is a threat to democrasy so they wanted a citizen militia as the armed force of the US. Militia needed arms so the ownership of arms for that militia wasn't to be prohibited. Of course these days the US has not only a large standing army, but a "well regulated militia" in the national guards as well so the premise behind the 2nd amendment is obsolete. But that's just my outsiders oppinion on the matter. I'm sure people who sell guns for a living like the NRA know better.